Jump to content

What constitutes damage history?


MIm20c

Recommended Posts

To start I have no problem with damage history planes as long as the repairs were done properly and the amount of damage was reasonable. However, it makes me wonder how much damage is necessary for a broker not to overlook and call it NKD?  Hanger rash?  Replacing wing skins and ailerons?  Prop strike?

I would think any replacement of major components due to impact damage would take the aircraft out of NKD but I’m interested to hear what others have to say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s as varied as any subject.  As an example, I take care of a Piper Arrow that had a left wing replaced with a new one years ago, as opposed to a repair of the spar.  To me it’s a parts replacement not damage history.

Clarence

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All damage is not created equal. Parts can be replaced all day long but that doesn’t necessarily erase damage history imo. I’m interested in what caused the damage and how the parts were damaged. Say someone comes in to land hot and ends up in the weeds clipping a fence post with a wing spinning the plane around and causing major damage. Replacing the wing does not erase damage history in my book! 

Edited by m20kmooney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damage History is a buyers method of haggling price.

DH vs. NDH is a point on the timeline of the aircraft.

Some pilots think a plane with NDH is more valuable than one with. Reason being if they can buy one without damage history for the same price as one with damage history the NDH should be the preferred choice.  Along those lines, DH may reduce the potential pool of buyers for the reason above and/or require a price decrease. Something to consider when purchasing.

As for actual damage history consider a prop strike. If the engine and prop are removed and replaced with new what remains on the aircraft to decrease the value of DH? It could be argued that the new prop and engine would increase the value of a DH air frame.

Is a 50 year old wing without hail damage worth more or less than the one with aileron skins replaced with new to repair the hail damage. ?

You decide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damage history is one of those things that raises a guttural response in many pilots. It’s certainly fair or true to say there is a loss in resale value due to stigma with damage history. But for damage that has been replaced with new parts, like the typical gear up, where all damage has been removed, the stigma should fully be gone after a few annuals. That’s my logic anyway, but pilots vary all over the place in this regard!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting topic.  I am in the process of purchasing an aircraft that has some damage history.  It will be going to a MSC for pre buy and I will have them pay special attention to the repairs.

There is no doubt damage history is something to be considered, but on the other hand, mechanical things break and get damaged all the time.  When you take off the broken parts and put new ones on (assuming you dont overlook other hidden damage) then in reality the mechanical device is good.   The key is not missing damage that isn't readily apparent.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we have anyone from the aircraft financing world on the forum? An expert in that field will be able to provide a very relevant input on this topic. I have a trainer that I couldn't get financing for because of recent sudden prop stoppages, recent being within the last 10 years. On the other hand, my Mooney had major wing damage from a large bird strike that was repaired at a service center 25 years before my purchase and that was not even a consideration in the aircraft value or financing approval.

@carusoam knows who does what around here, any point-outs on aircraft finance experts, Anthony?

Cheers,
Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the broker tells you NDH should that mean no midair collisions or no bent parts where the hangar won?  I guess I’m trying to judge if they are missing the indicators when reviewing the logs or if my threshold is too sensitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MIm20c said:

So if the broker tells you NDH should that mean no midair collisions or no bent parts where the hangar won?  I guess I’m trying to judge if they are missing the indicators when reviewing the logs or if my threshold is too sensitive. 

I think no damage history refers to no "incidents" or "accidents" for the most part. But of course there are exceptions and I've seen lots of hangar rash that isn't typically referred to as Damage History. But severe cases, such as an airplane that fell off the jacks and needed a new prop and engine teardown. I personally wouldn't view that as damage history assuming engine was at least IRAN'd and bent prop blades replaced (like what happened to Don K)  although some might - but holes through the wing skin would certainly be considered damage history by most. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junkman said:

Do we have anyone from the aircraft financing world on the forum? An expert in that field will be able to provide a very relevant input on this topic. I have a trainer that I couldn't get financing for because of recent sudden prop stoppages, recent being within the last 10 years. On the other hand, my Mooney had major wing damage from a large bird strike that was repaired at a service center 25 years before my purchase and that was not even a consideration in the aircraft value or financing approval.

@carusoam knows who does what around here, any point-outs on aircraft finance experts, Anthony?

Cheers,
Rick

I personally wouldn't put any stock in the opinion of the bank providing financing. They look at risk much like insurance company's. The real issue here is a lack of facts. If the airplane engine has not been IRAN'd with prop OH'd with new blade(s) or whatever it needed even though the Lycoming SB doesn't directly require an IRAN, then that is very reasonable to pass on the aircraft. Afterall, every insurance company will pay for the IRAN and prop (with the owner paying for betterment) because they realize that the saving not to do so is small versus the risk of being wrong and the exposure to a major lawsuit later. So anytime this isn't done, all we know for sure is the plane was self insured.  But if indeed the engine and prop were both IRAN's or Majored then that defies all logic. For all practical purposes the engine and prop that were damaged have in essence been replaced with IRAN'd or OH's ones whether its just parts or entire components. But many owner/prospective buyers are similar in their response and want no part of it; including a gear up that happened years ago with all damage replaced. 

But if you're seeking an "expert" I suggest Jimmy G at All American - as a Broker he has to deal with both the wide array of prospective buyers and the finance companies. I'd trust his advice to be well grounded.

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kortopates said:

I personally wouldn't put any stock in the opinion of the bank providing financing.

Good point Paul.

Hopefully I'm not derailing the thread as I think this is relevant - the two sudden stoppages on my trainer both involved complete IRANs of the engine (with a list of replaced engine parts each time) as well as a new propeller on the most recent one. I paid cash for the airplane, confident that I had a great airplane that the bank wouldn't touch.

I guess the bottom line is a thorough review of the logbooks, and then questioning anything that raises a question. If you're the seller, then identifying anything that you think a potential buyer would have questions about and having the complete answers would be a right thing to do.

Back to the OP question of how far a broker would go with a NDH declaration, we more appropriately should be asking for input from a broker? I know there are a few here.

Cheers,
Junkman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another one of those topics that can cause controversy because there are multiple viewpoints with the two biggest differing opinions between pilots and mechanics. I'm a professional aircraft mechanic and agree with Clarence that if a damaged part is removed and replaced then there is no damage history. I'll take it a few steps further and say that there are multiple levels of repairs. The highest level of repair would be engineering data provided by Mooney for a repair. Second would be DER data, then lastly IA data using the manufacturers maintenance manual and AC 43-13. All of these will lead to at least the paperwork being correct for a repair. I personally feel there's no deduction in value an aircraft for Mooney engineering data or DER data for a repair at least as far as the engineering behind the repair goes. IA data deserves more review as not all of us are the same when it comes to engineering a repair. Any deduction in value would need to be based off of the quality of the workmanship of the repair itself and not solely because there was a repair done. 

My airplane has had two gear ups in its lifetime with the last one being done in 2005. When I purchased it in 2010, I looked it over including what had been repaired and didn't even think about it again when it came time to negotiate price. It was a non event and added value to the aircraft in my opinion with a relatively new prop, engine teardown and inspection in the last five years and a one piece belly. Not all damage is created equal or really damage at all if the part is replaced. 

 David

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damage history isn’t the problem, it’s in the log books. It is the stuff that doesn’t find itself into the log books and thus isn’t history that you have to worry about.  Hence the need for a solid PPi that I recommend doing as an annual so the inspector signs for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, M20F said:

Damage history isn’t the problem, it’s in the log books. It is the stuff that doesn’t find itself into the log books and thus isn’t history that you have to worry about.  Hence the need for a solid PPi that I recommend doing as an annual so the inspector signs for it. 

In principal I totally agree, but at Savvy we'd recommend turning the pre-buy into an annual AFTER you own it. Reason being that if anything goes sideways during the annual you as the buyer have no say, only the legal owner of record. You can't legally direct the annual till you are the owner. 

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kortopates said:

In principal I totally agree, but at Savvy we'd recommend turning the pre-buy into an annual AFTER you own it. Reason being that if anything goes sideways during the annual you as the buyer have no say, only the legal owner of record. You can't legally direct the annual till you are the owner. 

I dont understand this advice. And I may soon be acting counter to it which concerns me...  My current plan is to do a PPI, then an annual will be performed before closing.  The seller will be responsible for the annual financially and if we are not satisfied things have been done right, we walk.  This is going to be done at a MSC. 

If you do a PPI and then close and head off to an annual, you are holding the bill for anything that is missed in the PPI.

Edited by Austintatious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing intelligent to add to multiple nuanced, thoughtful answers above on defining damage history, so here's my asinine one:

It's like porn, I know it when I see it.

Related image

 

Edited by DXB
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the scope and purpose of a PPI. A knowledgeable MSC doing a PPI is there to give advice on the purchase. I want the MSC to tell me if they'd personally purchase the plane and if not, why not. I want the shop to tell me about all kinds of stuff that isn't related to an annual. I want to know how well the plane has been taken care of, not just is it airworthy. The AI's signature on the annual gives no protection from anything as soon as the plane leaves the shop anyway. And thinking that an annual forces the shop to take responsibility leads to a contentious situation that is counter to the relationship I'm trying to have with the shop and won't lead to better advice.

The first Mooney I bought was PPI'd by DMax. He called me after an extensive PPI and told me that there were about $6K worth of issues, but they could all be addressed, and that I should buy the plane and why. I followed his advice and it turned out to be exactly the right decision.

After the PPI is done, and before the plane is closed back up... finish negotiations, wire funds, and buy the plane. Now that you own it, have the shop complete the annual and then close the plane back up. And fly it away with a fresh annual. If the PPI is done correctly, the annual should be a very simple and predictable event. As the shop already knows everything there is to be found out in an annual. And a lot more!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My version of the PPI is to open the entire airplane, if the panel can be removed, open it and look behind it.  If the “Annual” checklist is used as the PPI there are some inspection panels which are not removed as part of the Annual, what if there is an issue like a corroded wing spar is found behind these?  

Once the inspection is completed and the deal closed financially, the “Annual” portion can proceed and should be a matter of the servicing items like fuel screens, filters, wheel bearing lubrication, topping up reservoirs, recertification of the ELT, compass swing etc.

There is always some assumed risk and not every defect can or will be found.

Clarence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Austintatious said:

I dont understand this advice. And I may soon be acting counter to it which concerns me...  My current plan is to do a PPI, then an annual will be performed before closing.  The seller will be responsible for the annual financially and if we are not satisfied things have been done right, we walk.  This is going to be done at a MSC. 

If you do a PPI and then close and head off to an annual, you are holding the bill for anything that is missed in the PPI.

You're asking for a Pre-Purchase and then another Pre-Purchase disguised as an annual. I would be very cautious of dealing with any Seller stupid enough to be willing to agree to do this. It would take a desperate seller that would agree to that. If the airplane is sound the seller shouldn't be desperate, as airplanes are selling.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this advice. And I may soon be acting counter to it which concerns me...  My current plan is to do a PPI, then an annual will be performed before closing.  The seller will be responsible for the annual financially and if we are not satisfied things have been done right, we walk.  This is going to be done at a MSC. 
If you do a PPI and then close and head off to an annual, you are holding the bill for anything that is missed in the PPI.

If you want further background on this, this article should help.
https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2014-11_prebuy-dos-and-donts.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

You're asking for a Pre-Purchase and then another Pre-Purchase disguised as an annual. I would be very cautious of dealing with any Seller stupid enough to be willing to agree to do this. It would take a desperate seller that would agree to that. If the airplane is sound the seller shouldn't be desperate, as airplanes are selling.

  The aircraft is due for annual anyhow and the seller has been great to work with and has been very forthcoming about the aircrafts history.  So far everything he has said has been true ( verified by calls to shops including Contnental.) 

even if we grant that the seller is stupid/ desperate for doing it this way... doesn't it work out in my favor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand this advice. And I may soon be acting counter to it which concerns me...  My current plan is to do a PPI, then an annual will be performed before closing.  The seller will be responsible for the annual financially and if we are not satisfied things have been done right, we walk.  This is going to be done at a MSC. 
If you do a PPI and then close and head off to an annual, you are holding the bill for anything that is missed in the PPI.

If the seller is paying for annual, then he controls the annual and the IA reports to him. You don’t want that, you want to take it to your shop. You are going to need to establish a relationship with a shop anyway.


Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kortopates said:

In principal I totally agree, but at Savvy we'd recommend turning the pre-buy into an annual AFTER you own it. Reason being that if anything goes sideways during the annual you as the buyer have no say, only the legal owner of record. You can't legally direct the annual till you are the owner. 

Not a lawyer but a well written sales contract is going to cover that.  You can spin it the other way and have a airplane you now own that the AI doesn’t want to sign off as well.  

7 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:


If the seller is paying for annual, then he controls the annual and the IA reports to him. You don’t want that, you want to take it to your shop. You are going to need to establish a relationship with a shop anyway.


Tom

You name the shop in the sales contract.  Maxwell did mine as an annual, seller paid for airworthy, Maxwell made a list of additional squawks, sale was closed.  I was obligated for the annual if I elected to walk, seller was obligated for annual if they refused to pay for airworthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.